Coronavirus Vaccines

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,736
Reaction score
2,908
Location
Glennville, GA
The first result of a small but significant human vaccine trial are in:

This one is on the Moderna RNA COVID Vaccine. Moderna is a company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. All 45 participants in a trial developed blood levels of COVID-19 antibodies 15 days after receiving their first injection and incredibly, within two weeks after receiving their second injection, blood levels of the protective antibodies were the same as in patients who had recovered from an active COVID-19 infection. No harmful effects of the vaccine were reported. It is a small trial but very impressive results.

If passes scrutiny, I predict that the COVID-19 pandemic will be over in less than a year.
 
Last edited:

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
865
The first result of a small but significant human vaccine trial are in:

This one is on the Moderna RANA COVID Vaccine. Moderna is a company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. All 45 participants in a trial developed blood levels of COVID-19 antibodies 15 days after receiving their first injection and incredibly, within two weeks after receiving their second injection, blood levels of the protective antibodies were the same as in patients who had recovered from an active COVID-19 infection. No harmful effects of the vaccine were reported. It is a small trial but very impressive results.

If passes scrutiny, I predict that the COVID-19 pandemic will be over in less than a year.

Chuck,

45 people is a mighty small sampling . . .

When they do large-scale testing, how many subjects are typically involved and how long do they observe them for side effects / complications that may pop up later, BEFORE the vaccine is approved for widespread use ?

At some point, are all of the "test subjects" directly exposed to a high concentration of the actual virus, to see if the vaccine really works ?

Dave F.
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,736
Reaction score
2,908
Location
Glennville, GA
Chuck,

45 people is a mighty small sampling . . .

When they do large-scale testing, how many subjects are typically involved and how long do they observe them for side effects / complications that may pop up later, BEFORE the vaccine is approved for widespread use ?

At some point, are all of the "test subjects" directly exposed to a high concentration of the actual virus, to see if the vaccine really works ?

Dave F.
Large scale testing to start in less than 30 days once the results are validated by the FDA. I think this company could be on pace the beat January. Then again, that is when the bottom falls out. I might have to buy some stock (if they are offered to the public).
 

Funkworks

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2018
Messages
536
Reaction score
224
Good chance no vaccine will ever be found so...no big launches ever again?
Based on that line alone, and not having a clue who I'm addressing, here's my answer:

Yes. That's entirely correct. Tomorrow, I'll be telling all of the world's medical researcher's to stop and take up knitting instead. But first, I must have dinner and a good night's sleep.
 

DAllen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,744
Reaction score
686
Based on that line alone, and not having a clue who I'm addressing, here's my answer:

Yes. That's entirely correct. Tomorrow, I'll be telling all of the world's medical researcher's to stop and take up knitting instead. But first, I must have dinner and a good night's sleep.
Thanks for the sarcasm. That was a helpful contribution to the discussion. :rolleyes:

See this is the problem with a mod taking a single post (or multiple posts) out of one thread and starting a new thread with said post(s). The context is lost.
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,736
Reaction score
2,908
Location
Glennville, GA
Thanks for the sarcasm. That was a helpful contribution to the discussion. :rolleyes:

See this is the problem with a mod taking a single post (or multiple posts) out of one thread and starting a new thread with said post(s). The context is lost.
His response with sarcasm is probably in response to yours.

I think the point is not whether a vaccine will be produced but whether it will still be needed.
 

Alan15578

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
292
Reaction score
64
Large scale testing to start in less than 30 days once the results are validated by the FDA. I think this company could be on pace the beat January. Then again, that is when the bottom falls out. I might have to buy some stock (if they are offered to the public).
Prison testing comes to mind, but it may be too late for that. (Ducking head and hiding.)
 

DAllen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
4,744
Reaction score
686
Well in THAT post I wasn't being sarcastic. It was a response to this from the other thread:

"It is nto worth the risk. Small launches may be the only game in town until there is a vaccine. "

I was simply trying to get a sense of the impact of what you were saying. It was an honest question and I am sorry it didn't come across that way.

I understand why this new thread was started and I am fine with that but you loose the context in the process.
 

Marc_G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
6,329
Reaction score
480
Location
Indianapolis Metro Area
In response to the a sincere question about small launches only, my belief is that over the summer we will gradually be relaxing all kind of guidelines as we get more comfortable with social distancing. This includes masks in public, better attention to potential transmission of virus through touch, and so on. THings like sporting events should open up with reduced capacity seating and such. Along the way our events will likely widen up as long as we distance properly. Baby steps at first. This is the optimist in me.

While I believe this will happen, I also expect us (people in general, not just rocketeers) will go too far too fast and cause hotspots to flare and a big wave of the disease in the fall. This is the pessimist in me.
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,216
Reaction score
2,724
Location
Butte, Montana
Well in THAT post I wasn't being sarcastic. It was a response to this from the other thread:

"It is nto worth the risk. Small launches may be the only game in town until there is a vaccine. "

I was simply trying to get a sense of the impact of what you were saying. It was an honest question and I am sorry it didn't come across that way.

I understand why this new thread was started and I am fine with that but you loose the context in the process.
Dave,
There will be large launches again. Our Prefects are already doing their best to adapt. They may look different that you’re used to, but they will be back.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
865
I think the point is not whether a vaccine will be produced but whether it will still be needed.
Chuck,

I'll make a prediction . . . A vaccine WILL be "necessary", no matter what, because there is FAR TOO MUCH MONEY to be made from it !

Dave F.
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,736
Reaction score
2,908
Location
Glennville, GA
Chuck,

I'll make a prediction . . . A vaccine WILL be "necessary", no matter what, because there is FAR TOO MUCH MONEY to be made from it !

Dave F.
Agreed. I am sorry if I touch a nerve on this thread. Stop listening to the news. A vaccine is on the way. I pray it is not needed when it arrives.
 

jsdemar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
2,434
Reaction score
439
Here's an explanation of why it is difficult to compare antibody testing, and why the data are imperfect. Some are useful for evaluating populations, but not good enough at the individual level. There are some words in this science paper with more than four syllables, so it might not be for all TRF readers. ;-)
https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/47/eabc6347
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
865
Here's an explanation of why it is difficult to compare antibody testing, and why the data are imperfect. Some are useful for evaluating populations, but not good enough at the individual level. There are some words in this science paper with more than four syllables, so it might not be for all TRF readers. ;-)
https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/5/47/eabc6347
Testing and "contact tracing" is useless . . . A person can test Negative and then be exposed 5 minutes later . . . Then, factor in the 14 +/- day Incubation Period, being contagious prior to becoming symptomatic, and all of the asymptomatic cases, which still spread the disease.

Regarding the attempt to do "Contact Tracing", people interact with so many other individuals and groups, many / most of them unknown ( strangers in a store, in an elevator, people on a bus or subway, children in school, store customers, buying "handled" fresh produce, drive-through / take-out food, etc, etc, etc. ), making the development of any kind of effective, meaningful "pattern", virtually impossible.

All of the variables are occurring in "Real Time", while the "Testers" & "Contact Tracers" are constantly trying to "play catch up" which, in reality, they never can do. There is no way to know every interaction and the problem is geometric, in Society.

This is an untenable approach, except to use as a "tool" for either preventing the economy from fully opening up or providing an "instant excuse" to shut everything down again, sending us back to "square one" of quarantine / lockdown !
 

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,736
Reaction score
2,908
Location
Glennville, GA
Testing and "contact tracing" is useless . . . A person can test Negative and then be exposed 5 minutes later . . . Then, factor in the 14 +/- day Incubation Period, being contagious prior to becoming symptomatic, and all of the asymptomatic cases, which still spread the disease.

Regarding the attempt to do "Contact Tracing", people interact with so many other individuals and groups, many / most of them unknown ( strangers in a store, in an elevator, people on a bus or subway, children in school, store customers, buying "handled" fresh produce, drive-through / take-out food, etc, etc, etc. ), making the development of any kind of effective, meaningful "pattern", virtually impossible.

All of the variables are occurring in "Real Time", while the "Testers" & "Contact Tracers" are constantly trying to "play catch up" which, in reality, they never can do. There is no way to know every interaction and the problem is geometric, in Society.

This is an untenable approach, except to use as a "tool" for either preventing the economy from fully opening up or providing an "instant excuse" to shut everything down again, sending us back to "square one" of quarantine / lockdown !
I would not call contract tracing useless. That is what has kept GA low. We trace the exposures to all positives and quarantine and isolate them.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
865
I would not call contract tracing useless. That is what has kept GA low. We trace the exposures to all positives and quarantine and isolate them.
Chuck,

How is that tracing accomplished ?

There is no way to account for casual contacts in public or in a scenario like where a person is on a elevator and someone sneezes into the open air.

Dave F.
 
Last edited:

FMarvinS

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
400
Reaction score
53
Hi John-the article you cited has several omissions and presumptions that put some of the authors' interpretation in doubt. For example, they use the example of an antibody testing kit with 96% specificity and 90% sensitivity. Well, there are currently in use nationally, test kits that have specificity and sensitivity of 100% which means under the right conditions there will be very few false positives or false negatives. If you check the following John's Hopkins reference (https://www.centerforhealthsecurity...rology/Serology-based-tests-for-COVID-19.html) you'll find more than 10 kits with sensitivity and specificity higher than the one chosen by the author. So for example, if a test kit has a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99.5% (then with a disease prevalence of 5%, using an algorithm- http://vassarstats.net/clin2.html ) then the chance of a false positive is about 8 % and that of a false negative is zero% which is as good as many of the PCR-swab kits on the market! If the antibody tests are done and interpreted correctly, they can assist diagnosis and help to identify candidates as prospective convalescent plasma donors. Sorry to drag on-but that article's omissions are misleading.

Fred
 

PatD

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
262
Reaction score
141
That part, I agree with. I would prefer the normal trial process to determine safety and efficacy for something put in my body.

I will wait, if I can. If the vaccine is mandatory per my employer, I'll get it.
Edit: Errata I didn't need to interject.
 
Last edited:

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,736
Reaction score
2,908
Location
Glennville, GA
Chuck,

How is that tracing accomplished ?

There is no way to account for casual contacts in public or in a scenario like where a person is on a elevator and someone sneezes into the open air.

Dave F.
Tracing is not meant to catch every incidental contact. The point is to find the most likely infections in clusters. We do go in-depth, but what we are finding is most folks are catching this from folks they spend 20-30 minutes with. That is not an incidental contact. There are rare cases form shorter contact but these are folks that just do not practice good hygiene.

The elevator contact from a button is not one that is traceable.
 

Marc_G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
6,329
Reaction score
480
Location
Indianapolis Metro Area
Chuck,

How is that tracing accomplished ?

There is no way to account for casual contacts in public or in a scenario like where a person is on a elevator and someone sneezes into the open air.

Dave F.
Dave, further to what Chuck said, contact tracing has been used very successfully here in Indiana. I heard an article on the radio about its use from the IN Dept of Health. This is very manual, time consuming contact tracing but does work. What would be better is something like this:
dp3t.png

Source: https://ncase.me/covid-19/ about halfway down the page. Seriously, check out this page. Great playable simulators with explanations.

People, myself included, are leery of putting anything resembling a tracker on their phone. However, this could be implemented with strong privacy and I would volunteer to do it. It doesn't need everybody (the more, the better, but full coverage not required) and would substantially contribute to getting R<1.

Testing and contact tracing is MORE necessary with long incubation period situations like COVID-19. But remember, most cases present at around day 5 +/-, with 14 days being possible but outliers.

Staying out of lockdown is going to take a rethink of a lot of elements of U.S. society. I would much rather have this contact tracer on my phone for a year than ping-pong between open and lockdown this fall.
 

jsdemar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
2,434
Reaction score
439
Hi John-the article you cited has several omissions and presumptions that put some of the authors' interpretation in doubt. For example, they use the example of an antibody testing kit with 96% specificity and 90% sensitivity. Well, there are currently in use nationally, test kits that have specificity and sensitivity of 100% which means under the right conditions there will be very few false positives or false negatives. If you check the following John's Hopkins reference (https://www.centerforhealthsecurity...rology/Serology-based-tests-for-COVID-19.html) you'll find more than 10 kits with sensitivity and specificity higher than the one chosen by the author. So for example, if a test kit has a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99.5% (then with a disease prevalence of 5%, using an algorithm- http://vassarstats.net/clin2.html ) then the chance of a false positive is about 8 % and that of a false negative is zero% which is as good as many of the PCR-swab kits on the market! If the antibody tests are done and interpreted correctly, they can assist diagnosis and help to identify candidates as prospective convalescent plasma donors. Sorry to drag on-but that article's omissions are misleading.

Fred
The list from Johns Hopkins has to be carefully looked at to determine the source, qualification, and type of the antibody test. One of the authors of the paper I cited is from Johns Hopkins, so it's not likely they misinterpreted that list. One of their points is the need for a universal method to qualify the serum tests' effectiveness. Ones on the list from China, etc, are not qualified the same way the US FDA would, so you cannot compare sensitivity and selectivity. Many of the claims are from short trials or R&D results, not from fully reviewed clinical trials.
Another point they made is that there's a difference in using serum tests for policy decisions versus clinical diagnostics use versus "proof of immunity". Trades of cost, speed of results, and effectiveness come into play for each application. Complicate that with the unknowns: how long does immunity last, are there strains that make the test ineffective now or in the longrun, and how does genetics effect the lengths of immunity?
So, there was no conclusion in their letter to point to there being omissions or being misleading. It is a discussion of the difficulties interpreting what is out there, and the difficulties ahead.
 

FMarvinS

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
400
Reaction score
53
The list from Johns Hopkins has to be carefully looked at to determine the source, qualification, and type of the antibody test. One of the authors of the paper I cited is from Johns Hopkins, so it's not likely they misinterpreted that list. One of their points is the need for a universal method to qualify the serum tests' effectiveness. Ones on the list from China, etc, are not qualified the same way the US FDA would, so you cannot compare sensitivity and selectivity. Many of the claims are from short trials or R&D results, not from fully reviewed clinical trials.
Another point they made is that there's a difference in using serum tests for policy decisions versus clinical diagnostics use versus "proof of immunity". Trades of cost, speed of results, and effectiveness come into play for each application. Complicate that with the unknowns: how long does immunity last, are there strains that make the test ineffective now or in the longrun, and how does genetics effect the lengths of immunity?
So, there was no conclusion in their letter to point to there being omissions or being misleading. It is a discussion of the difficulties interpreting what is out there, and the difficulties ahead.
Hey John- my response was to their choice of one set of sensitivity/specificty that did not truly reflect the better product results listed in the article I cited. The direction of the current recommendations are to use both PCR (swab) and antibody tests particularly when assessing potential convalescent plasma donors and also in diagnosis. For example, its been promulgated in some studies that the PCR test is close to 70% reliable in week one of disease and accuracy drops with time but with the additional use of an antibody (blood) test it can raise accuracy of detection to 98.6%. The FDA has released several antibody kits under the category for research purposes only and will further test these diagnostic kits reliability in time. That applies to most of the tests listed in my reference article.
Your article also did not mention that PCR tests have false negative results and accuracy falls over time. Again, such omissions mislead the reader.
I agree that further analyses/testing is needed; however, that is also true of the PCR based methodology in which recently new protocols have been developed to speed up results at lower cost. In addition antigen identification tests have also been developed for diagnosis that your article did not even discuss. Their analyses was incomplete and somewhat slanted. Medical research is a contact sport and that is at times reflected in publication.
By the way, my criticism is of the article omissions only, I do appreciate an energetic discussion-delays the onset of alzheimer's disease!

Regards,
Fred
 
Last edited:

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
865
Several states starting phone based contact tracing:
I'll be leaving my phone at home . . .

It's too easy to find yourself in a forced quarantine, just because someone else was near you or you had been near someone else who had been near to someone else, etc..
 
Last edited:

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
24,736
Reaction score
2,908
Location
Glennville, GA

Marc_G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
6,329
Reaction score
480
Location
Indianapolis Metro Area
The Apple and Google approach was designed to protect users’ privacy and limit the use of personal information in digital contact tracing.

The companies won’t allow apps built with their technology to use GPS data, which can pinpoint a user’s location, and won’t allow governments to turn them on silently, company representatives said. The companies also say they will restrict governmental authorities to collecting the minimum amount of data necessary, and nobody will be able to use the data for advertising or other uses.
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
865
The companies won’t allow apps built with their technology to use GPS data, which can pinpoint a user’s location, and won’t allow governments to turn them on silently, company representatives said. The companies also say they will restrict governmental authorities to collecting the minimum amount of data necessary, and nobody will be able to use the data for advertising or other uses.
I believe them . . . Really, I do . . . NOT !
 

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,540
Reaction score
865
Well, you have to opt in to it...
Not necessarily . . . If a person who has "opted in" is near you and you have NOT "opted in", I bet they still get your information !
 

Marc_G

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
6,329
Reaction score
480
Location
Indianapolis Metro Area
This a good use of technology as long as they allow for some means to promote privacy.
Not necessarily . . . If a person who has "opted in" is near you and you have NOT "opted in", I bet they still get your information !
No, you will have to turn it on. I have great faith that these apps will be picked apart with a fine -toothed comb and any funny business would be quickly uncovered. The scrutiny these things face will be unprecedented.
 
2
Top